Sustainability Issues in Biomass Feedstock Production: A Policy Perspective - Engineering and Science of Biomass Feedstock Production and Provision - page 234

9.2.1.3 Sustainability and the Forest Sector in the United States

While the aforementioned policies reach both agricultural and forest biomass, sus-
tainability regulation within forests is more developed than in agricultural land-
scapes due to the historical exemption of farming activities from environmental
regulation. Jurisdiction over forestry sustainability management depends on whether
the land is publically or privately held. The US Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service (USDA-FS) and the US Department of Interior administer sustainable for-
estry laws and rules on federal lands. These include the Organic Act leading to the
modern-day establishment of the USDA-FS, the Sustained Yield Act of 1944, the
Multi-Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), and the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). Since its inception, USDA-FS has come under
criticism by forest-protection advocates that its interpretation of “sustained yield”
and “multiple use” contained in these statutes favors harvest levels to the detriment
of sustained ecological function of the forest. In addition to NFMA, however, fed-
eral forest actions also are subject to other general laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Endangered Species
Act. The USDA-FS' interpretation of these laws still is ever-evolving, however, as
evidenced by the US Supreme Court's recent decision deferring EPA's decision not
to apply CWA point source permitting to road building in federal forests [ 44 ]. How
these laws are interpreted will affect the ability to harvest forest biomass on federal
lands for bioenergy. The following sections detail the potential relationship between
the applications of various federal forest policies for biomass energy.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976

Although NFMA does not allow environmental values to completely trump eco-
nomic uses of federal forests, NFMA does require the USFS to prepare manage-
ment plans that provide for “sustainable” yields and regulations that consider plant,
animal, and tree diversity. The Forest Service Manual and other guidance (e.g., best
management practices for water quality) play primary roles in implementation of
forest plans. Until 2012, federal planning rules have been based on a 1982 rule. The
Clinton administration proposed a revised rule in 2000, but the George W. Bush
administration refused to implement the rule. Instead, it proposed its own rules
twice that essentially eliminated environmental review and scientifi c assessment.
Courts on both occasions struck down the rules, opening an opportunity for the
Obama administration to fi nalize a new forest management rule [ 45 , 46 ].
Whether or not the current rule will be similarly overturned is uncertain, but
undoubtedly it has already caused controversy. The Center for Biological Diversity,
the organization behind the two other successful suits, has criticized the rule for
weakening longstanding biodiversity protections by eliminating the requirement
that the Forest Service maintain viable populations of species in favor of deference
to localized decisions. The rule instead focuses on ecosystem integrity and